Comparison between Single-Objective and Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms: Performance Comparison and Performance Measures

We compare single-objective genetic algorithms (SOGAs) with multi-objective genetic algorithms (MOGAs) in their applications to multi-objective knapsack problems. First we discuss difficulties in comparing a single solution by SOGAs with a solution set by MOGAs. We also discuss difficulties in comparing several solutions from multiple runs of SOGAs with a large number of solutions from a single run of MOGAs. It is shown that existing performance measures are not necessarily suitable for such comparison. Then we compare SOGAs with MOGAs through computational experiments on multi-objective knapsack problems. Experimental results on two-objective problems show that MOGAs outperform SOGAs even when they are evaluated with respect to a scalar fitness function used in SOGAs. This is because MOGAs are more likely to escape from local optima. On the other hand, experimental results on four-objective problems show that the search ability of MOGAs is degraded by the increase in the number of objectives. Finally we suggest a framework of hybrid algorithms where a scalar fitness function in SOGAs is probabilistically used in MOGAs to improve the convergence of solutions to the Pareto front.

[1]  Carlos M. Fonseca,et al.  Inferential Performance Assessment of Stochastic Optimisers and the Attainment Function , 2001, EMO.

[2]  Kazutoshi Sakakibara,et al.  Multi-objective approaches in a single-objective optimization environment , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyses, and new innovations , 1999 .

[4]  Evan J. Hughes,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimisation: many once or one many? , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[6]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  Specification of Genetic Search Directions in Cellular Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms , 2001, EMO.

[7]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Applications Of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms , 2004 .

[8]  Andrzej Jaszkiewicz,et al.  On the computational efficiency of multiple objective metaheuristics. The knapsack problem case study , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[10]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications , 1999 .

[11]  Christine L. Mumford,et al.  A hierarchical solve-and-merge framework for multi-objective optimization , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Richard A. Watson,et al.  Reducing Local Optima in Single-Objective Problems by Multi-objectivization , 2001, EMO.

[14]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  On the Performance Assessment and Comparison of Stochastic Multiobjective Optimizers , 1996, PPSN.

[15]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms - A Comparative Case Study , 1998, PPSN.